I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

President Barack Obama in his second inauguration address called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.” Taking advantage of the bully pulpit and a huge national audience, Obama mustered his best possible arguments in a brief case for why addressing global warming is supposedly necessary. Unfortunately for global warming alarmists, Obama’s case was exceptionally flimsy. Then again, Obama did not have much to work with, as the overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy.

Obama presented his argument as follows: “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

Given a fresh canvas on which to work, Obama sought the most compelling examples of an asserted global warming crisis. He chose wildfires, drought and powerful storms. At the same time, he urged us to defer to the “overwhelming judgment of science” on these matters.

President Obama, I agree we should strongly consider the overwhelming judgment of science. Let’s apply the overwhelming judgment of science to your three cherry-picked examples and see what the science reveals.

Leading off the Obama “Big Three” is wildfires. What does the overwhelming judgment of science reveal?

The National Interagency Fire Center reports the number of annual wildfires in the United States has been declining for more than 30 years. In fact, the “overwhelming judgment of science” reveals the number of wildfires rose from the 1950s through the 1970s, as global temperatures declined, and has been declining ever since, as global temperatures have modestly warmed.

The really interesting part about wildfires in the United States is a recent increase in the number of acres burned per wildfire after the federal government reversed a decades-long policy of putting out as many wildfires as quickly as possible. In the 1990s, environmentalists and federal forest officials reported forests had become overgrown as a result of firefighters putting out too many natural fires too quickly. Since then, firefighters are responding to fewer forest fires and letting more acres burn. As a result, even though wildfires occur less frequently as our planet warms and as soil moisture improves (more on that coming right up), our global warming Alarmist in Chief presents the misleading assertion that global warming rather than a change in federal wildfire policy is causing a recent increase in acres burned due to wildfires.

Next in Obama’s “Big Three” of asserted global warming crises is drought. What does the “overwhelming judgment of science” reveal?

U.S. and global soil moisture improved throughout the 20th century as our planet warmed in its recovery from the Little Ice Age. According to the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank, global soil moisture increased throughout the 20th century at almost all sites. Moreover, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that 20th century droughts were quite mild when compared to droughts in previous centuries. This “overwhelming scientific judgment of science” was confirmed in November when a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Naturefound “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

Finally, the President asserts that global warming is causing more powerful storms. This assertion is particularly fictitious. NOAA reports a long-term decline in strong tornadoes striking the United States. The National Hurricane Center reports that the past 40 years have seen the fewest major hurricane strikes since at least the mid-1800s. Even Hurricane Sandy reminds us that the U.S. Northeast has experienced only one major hurricane strike since 1960, but experienced six major hurricane strikes during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, when global temperatures were cooler.

Clearly, the “overwhelming judgment of science” contradicts President Obama and global warming alarmists. This is a good thing.

Now let’s play a game of “pretend.”

Let’s pretend that none of the overwhelming scientific evidence presented above actually existed. Let’s pretend that science supported rather than contradicted President Obama’s assertions. The question is, what would Obama have us do to solve the problem?

Obama’s solution is to impose still more economy-killing carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy. This makes about as much sense as losing your car keys in Boston but insisting on searching for them in Los Angeles. True, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen more than 33 percent since the year 2000. However, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined during that time and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that during 2012 alone, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined by 8 percent compared to 2011.

China by far emits more carbon dioxide than any other nation and Chinese emissions are growing rapidly. China alone accounts for 75 percent of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 2000. If the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon dioxide emissions today (something that is impossible to do), the only thing we would accomplish would be to delay by about five years an equal increase in Chinese emissions. And China has repeatedly and emphatically insisted it will not agree to any restrictions on its carbon dioxide emissions.

Thankfully, President Obama, the “overwhelming judgment of science” shows the asserted global warming crisis exists solely in the minds of global warming alarmists.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Let me direct your attention to Figure 4 on page 3 of the AEO2013 Early Release Overview. It is immediately apparent from Figure 4 that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to steadily increase from 2013 to 2040. This directly contradicts Mr. Taylor’s contention that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions “will continue to decline for the foreseeable future.”

According to EIA forecasts, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase in the short-term (a few years) as well as in the long term (30 or so years).

Mr. Taylor has a well established history of including inaccurate and misleading statements in his commentaries. I’m sure you agree that Forbes readers deserve better.

I know you are fond of changing the subject, but my post was very specific in examining the evidence regarding Mr. Taylor’s contention that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions “will continue to decline for the foreseeable future.” The forecasts of the EIA, both in the short and long term, directly contradict Mr. Taylor’s claim. I’ve invited Mr. Taylor to cite the information on which his assertion is based but he’s refused to defend his claim.

As a consistent supporter of Mr. Taylor’s editorials, you are clearly eager to change the subject. However, your interest in revisiting this point and thereby drawing further attention to Mr. Taylor’s misrepresentations and distortions does him no favors. May I suggest you find a different avenue for creating a diversion?

“Taylor was wrong on the CO2 emission data and made a careless error. ”

thephysicsguy,

Let’s approach the question of what you describe as Mr. Taylor’s “ careless error” from a statistical point of view. Week after week I correct Mr. Taylor’s factual errors. If these errors are the result of “carelessness,” why do Mr. Taylor’s errors always fall in such a way as to favor his argument? If his errors were truly the result of innocent sloppiness, wouldn’t the direction of these errors occasionally run against his message? Yet they never do. Shouldn’t that raise suspicion about the reason for these errors, especially when he has been prone to repeating specific errors even after they have been identified for him previously?

At this point I’m afraid the available evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Taylor’s errors are the result of an intention to mislead Forbes readers. Although I’m certainly willing to accept your hypothesis that Mr. Taylor is incompetent at collecting and processing factual material relating to climate science, it has become evident that his incompetence is guided by deceitfulness.

Again, statistical considerations don’t support your assertion. Week after week you make comments that support the editorials of Mr. Taylor, either through defense of his remarks or attacks on his critics. Statistically speaking, if you are not a supporter of Mr. Taylor and his “free market environmentalism,” at least some of your comments should have expressed disagreement with Mr. Taylor’s positions. Yet they never do. Therefore the available evidence supports the verdict that you are in agreement with Mr. Taylor’s perspective on climate science. Until I see evidence that this verdict is incorrect, I think it’s fair and reasonable to regard you as a consistent and predictable supporter of Mr. Taylor.

Statistics are not your strong point (remember the tornado fiasco? Ha-ha just yanking your chain) I’ll support Taylor if I think he’s right. Most of my comments are not directly in support of what Taylor says, but to the people who make stupid unscientific statements in response to his posts. I enjoy Taylor’s posts because it brings out a certain segment of AGW fanatics that hate him. I enjoy messing with their heads, creating doubt, that sort of thing.

My perspective on climate science is that it is a relatively new field. What we don’t know far, far exceeds what we do know. So when people say the science is settled, I say bull****. It has become more of a political/environmental thing. I simply do not trust the U.N. I do not trust “the team”, i.e. Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth. They all have an axe to grind, and their bias is obvious. They are not true scientists in my estimation. Climategate proved that.

The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)1 has further strengthened. 9 The physical science contributions to the recent Special Report on Managing the Risk of Extreme Events and 10 Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)2 serves as a basis of the current assessment 11 regarding extreme weather and climate events.

Just wanted to say, I was enjoying the spirited debate between you and Cara. My view of science is that there is no such thing as something being settled. I think both sides (or are there more?) have things to offer. I do not in the least like the mean-spirited, motive-judging, on-line “debate” that is so typical elsewhere and ends up being so polarizing. Science needs sides to a debate because it hones scientific skills and results in refined data.